Lord Justice Leveson’s address in Australia

I hope that readers can forgive me returning to a pet topic of mine but I found this piece about Lord Justice Leveson’s address rather interesting and I am pleased to note that he is saying things about the “new media” that Both Ray and I have been arguing for quite sometime, namely that its users have to be held responsible for the things that they write or say.

In the super-injunction example, the writ of the law was, perhaps, believed not to run against bloggers and tweeters. This is perhaps an example of the wider phenomenon I mentioned earlier: the belief that the law does not, and cannot apply to the internet. In many ways this is a pernicious and false belief: false because the law can be enforced against those who blog and tweet; pernicious because the idea that the law does not apply to some while it applies to others undermines the rule of law as it is inconsistent with the idea of equality before the law. Procedural justice requires the law to be equally applicable to all.

While Lord Justice Leveson speaks to the nature of the problem with the “New Media” he does not offer any idea about how individuals may be held responsible for the things that they may publish in a tweet or blog and while he does not go further than mentioning online anonymity in passing I am saddened that he has not made the logical connection between easy anonymity and the behaviour that it enables and encourages. personally I think that easy anonymity goes hand in glove with bad behaviour and that Ray’s suggestion that no social media presence without verifiable bona fides should be possible has merit for improving accountability and civil behaviour. The suing of Twits and Bloggers who have thought that they could ignore the law with impunity is something that we will see far more often in the coming years and we Bloggers will have to be eternally aware of just where the boundaries of the law are if we are to avoid litigation. Personally I have always strived to remain within the bounds of the law because I do understand that doing so is essential for the civility of social engagement, hopefully those who have thought other wise will be brought to heal by the evolution of the law in the way that it pertains to our ever increasing online presence.

88 Comments

I think it might be a few years before appropriate legislation is put in place to prevent the anonymous scumbags damaging others online.

Obviously there needs to be some form of identifiable registration before people can set up a blog or Facebook page. At the moment there are no such controls or requirements, which is a bit like letting an unlicensed and anonymous driver loose on our roads in an unregistered car.

It’s a fairly simple process and all that’s really required is to enact legislation that requires the publishers to fully identify each forum owner before allowing it to go to air. Once identified, the author/owner of the blog or Facebook page then becomes fully traceable and legally liable for any harassment, stalking or defamation.

In the meantime though, Iain, I’d suggest not giving them any oxygen or wasting time in responding. We took SW down and that should be enough. Ignore them is my advice.

At the hight of power of Venice, they went to extraordinary lengths to prevent their government becoming corrupt. However, despite this, money buys power and lots of powerful people are easily offended. Even offended by such a trifling as trade with their competitors for example.

Because no one could speak their mind honestly in public, masks became very popular…

I just heard Greg Jericho (of Grog’s Gamut) on ABC radio saying that regulation of bloggers should only apply to those who have a large audience. Huh? He’s got it back to front – bloggers like him (and to a lesser extent Iain and myself) who blog under our real names and have regular followers are already effectively regulated by the existing laws of libel and other laws. It’s the smaller and anonymous shitbags who create the need for regulation.

You may be half right Ray, BUT deep in the back of my mind, is the old adage, of the importance of a fair, accurate and FREE press, in all its forms, including blogging ?

How do you legislate to curtail bloggers, or any other form of media (which is exactly what free speech is, in its essence ?), without curtailing that basic right of free speech ? There are already sufficient laws in place to punish the crazies ?

A dangerous line to cross, and future ramifications of such a crossing could be dire.

Do we want that ? Do we want to instill a communist bloc machine form of propaganda, acting as a free press ?

Not something to look forward to, and a door I would prefer not to walk through, regardless if some politician’s feelings are hurt ?

I think that insisting that all twits and bloggers must at least be identifiable to those who provide the online platforms they they use need not be any impediment to free speech but more importantly it will enable a more civil online environment.

You see “free speech” is more than just allowing everyone to say anything they please it needs to have the balance of requiring those spoken about the freedom from being defamed and harassed by anonymities because who can be truly free to speak if you know that you will be harassed by the unaccountable as a consequence?

No not in terms of the internet Paul, I liken it to the requirement that those making electoral comment have to announce who is the person authorising the words and images and where they can be contacted.
In our age of non-stop news and commentary why should blogs or twitter accounts be any different?

Do we want to instill a communist bloc machine form of propaganda, acting as a free press ?

No, and it’s not about some politician’s political feelings. You can certainly have a free press with registered blogs – why not? Freedom of speech does not require anonymity and in fact, it’s the anonymity which contributes to the abuses on the Internet. Maybe you don’t get what this is about, Paul? It’s not about curtailing freedoms to express opinions, it’s about preventing harassment and anonymous abuse of ordinary everyday people.

I also see your point Iain.
I seem to remember something about an old law, that states all political ads, during an election campaign, have to have endorsed the name of the issuing person, and the names of all the persons involved in the ads as well.

It is still a fine line to cross, at least for those that “behave” themselves.
I see a future, even now, where people are too frightened to say, what needs to be said, for fear of reprisals ? For those that are doing the dirty so to speak, laws are in place now, as well as advanced tracking techniques, to find the offender pretty quickly ? Hasn’t been too successful with the internet though has it ? Look how many internet scammers have been legally brought to task ? Not many is there. There is your long term difficulty ?

To my mind, something has to be seriously wrong before we start passing laws restricting freedom of speech. I’m not sure that people calling other people names and causing offence is serious enough for that.

If someone defames you on the internet, which is another thing altogether, there are legal steps you can take to have it removed and/or to hold them to account. Court orders can force companies like Facebook and Twitter to reveal who is using their services. These methods are probably expensive, but then again so is any defamation action.

Also, I seem to recall that when you join Facebook, they require you to provide a phone number. That surely is a form of registration and is likely to stop people from misusing their account.

so how about you 2 guys make it a rule that any posters to your blogs have to register their names and addresses, to get the ball rolling.
don’t forget the fruity one,….GD, will you?
it would be bye bye blogs in no time, and it will be just you two talking to each another.

just because you guys use your real names is not justification that others should.

The thing that might concern me is the effect of “blogger registration” on employment. So many employers these days are proactive in monitoring the online activities of current and prospective employees. That might be warranted in some cases, such as criminal activity or drug use. But if bloggers are forced to use their real name, I can see some being penalised or overlooked because of their political views. And frankly I think that is a contravention of individual rights.

I might add that while I find most of “GD’s” views objectionable, it is his right to hold them and express them. I don’t mind that he does so under an alias.

Actually Alan anonymity does not enable anything of the sort, because for every person who might use it for honest frankness there seem to be many others who use it as a licence for mischief and malice.
As for knowing ISPs well it would be nice if that gave reliable trace ability but with Proxy servers and other masking technology that is not always the case.

you’re always good for a chuckle fruity one.
i don’t think you have the foggiest idea about much at all.
it must be difficult living with all those hang ups, delusions, and prejudices you have.
so i am not only a stalker extraordinaire, but i am hiding myself to boot.
hahaha.
i think some more fruit must have been added to the mix lately.

Alan & Brian, you two just don’t get it, although I’d suggest that’s because you don’t want to get it, but that’s another story. Of course bloggers like Iain & I can ‘block out’ anonymous scumbags if we want to – and we often do – but the point about registering in order to open a blog or Facebook page is to prevent anonymous people starting one up with the sole purpose of harassing & defaming others. Um, there’s not a lot we can currently do about that sort of behaviour which isn’t exactly a nice thing to do, don’t you think? It’s also illegal. So … what exactly are your two’s thoughts about that? Do tell. I’m interested.

I object to having to supply identification to foreign companies like Facebook and Twitter just so I can use their services.

I didn’t mention Twitter but why would you object to giving identification to Facebook in order to establish a web page from where you could otherwise anonymously slag off at real identities? Same goes for starting a blog with WordPress.

Do you agree that people shouldn’t set up anonymously authored hate blogs or facebook pages and, if so, how would you propose to stop them?

Brian
I think that the point that should be made clear is that what we are proposing would not require that a user’s identity would have to be publicly displayed on any page just available in the event of unacceptable behaviour. The fact is you are without a doubt the sort of person who would have absolutely NOTHING to fear from what we propose because you have always behaved like a perfect gentleman even when you are at odds with the opinions of others.

Lower case Alan on the other hand, has as they would say about wayward schoolboys, “behaviour issues” and he could clearly benefit from the steadying effect of accountability for the things he says and does.

Lower case Alan on the other hand, has as they would say about wayward schoolboys, “behaviour issues” and he could clearly benefit from the steadying effect of accountability for the things he says and does.

what we are proposing would not require that a user’s identity would have to be publicly displayed on any page just available in the event of unacceptable behaviour

Exactly , Iain. And that overcomes any objections like Brian’s on the ‘right to privacy’ and on fears about your employer knowing your political views, etc.

Look guys, it’s a no-brainer and there is simply no valid argument against blog owners having to be identified and registered before being allowed to blog. Same goes for Facebook. I’m not sure about Twitter because I don’t regard that as being as potentially damaging as permanent websites can be. Twitter is here and then gone – and who takes it seriously?

Anyone who objects to having to register before starting a blog is probably suspect as to their motives.

Look guys, it’s a no-brainer and there is simply no valid argument against blog owners having to be identified and registered before being allowed to blog.

There is, it is called the right to privacy. Registering to start a website or blog is one thing, but providing sensitive personal information (or proof thereof) is another altogether. I object to having to send information like my full name, address, birthdate, driver’s license number or credit card details to big companies like Facebook, Twitter or Google, just so I can use their ‘free’ services. That information can and occasionally has been misused.

On the question of displaying a site or page owner’s real name “in the event of unacceptable behaviour”, that’s all well and good. But I can see that being misused in a similar way that anonymity is misused. On what grounds would a site owner’s personal details be released, simply because someone asks for them? Or will a court order or subpoena be required? If it’s the latter, then frankly that’s not that different from what we have now.

As for Twitter, I do not spend a lot of time on it but it can be as venomous as any other medium. If someone tweets “John Smith is a pedophile” to 5,000 followers then surely that is just as defamatory as a blog post to the same effect.

The fact is you are without a doubt the sort of person who would have absolutely NOTHING to fear from what we propose because you have always behaved like a perfect gentleman even when you are at odds with the opinions of others.

I object to having to send information like my full name, address, birthdate, driver’s license number or credit card details to big companies like Facebook, Twitter or Google, just so I can use their ‘free’ services

Just because it’s a “free service” doesn’t make it any less potentially open to abuse. Do you object to having to supply similar identifying information to:

Open a bank account?
Obtain a passport?
Hire a car?
Obtain a loan?

Your concerns about misuse of the information are insignificant compared to the damage that some people inflict by the anonymous free use of a blog and they do not outweigh that.

On what grounds would a site owner’s personal details be released, simply because someone asks for them? Or will a court order or subpoena be required?

I’d suggest it would be something between those two extremes you cite. It shouldn’t be released by just asking but then again, it shouldn’t require a court action either. There would obviously need to be a formal complaint process. The point is that, as it now stands, WordPress does not even ask for your real name and could not really help identify someone using a proxy server anyway, but if they were registered …..

Why the resistance, Brian? Unless you run or contribute to an anonymous blog it wouldn’t effect you. Most people running blogs are not offending and would have no such objection in my opinion. Not as strong as yours. What you’re effectively doing is defending scumbags on the basis of their so-called freedom of speech and privacy rights.

Just because it’s a “free service” doesn’t make it any less potentially open to abuse. Do you object to having to supply similar identifying information to: Open a bank account?

No. But they are financial transactions and those checks and balances are in place to prevent fraud. I’m not sure “being offended by nasty creeps” is in the same ball park as criminal activity.

Your concerns about misuse of the information are insignificant compared to the damage that some people inflict by the anonymous free use of a blog

No they are not. Privacy and freedom of speech are different issues and one does not necessarily outweigh the other.

I’d suggest it would be something between those two extremes you cite. It shouldn’t be released by just asking but then again, it shouldn’t require a court action either.

Well what then? Because frankly I can’t see much in the middle. If you leave it up to the courts and/or police, it’s too difficult. But if you allow individuals access to that information, even if they have to follow some kind of process, then it’s going to be misused just as anonymity is misused.

Why the resistance, Brian? Unless you run or contribute to an anonymous blog it wouldn’t effect you.

Because I don’t agree Ray. I’m aware that some people use the internet to spread hate and vitriol about other individuals, politicians, races, etc. But it has always been thus, that’s what some people do. Trying to stop them by imposing identity controls that frankly I think are ‘unpoliceable’ and sound a bit too Orwellian just won’t work.

On the other hand, if you were arguing that Facebook, Twitter or WordPress should be more proactive in shutting down hateful sites, like those targeting police, teachers or other people, I’d certainly agree.

Paul, you’re way out of the ball park with all that. No one’s details would be shown on the Internet – it would simply be a matter of registering yourself with the relevant authority before you can open a blog. Don’t you accept that you have to be identified and registered to drive a car on our roads lest you break the law? There’s no real difference.

At present all one needs is a working email address to start a blog on Google or WP and that means that these entities have no idea just who is using their service, frankly I would think it would serve well enough if having required real identifies to use them and that these companies would only be required to release that information pursuant to a court order.
Thus the privacy of users could be maintained but real redress would be possible should the need arise.

That sounds like a fair proposal Iain. However I suspect that if hateful people intend to misuse the service, they will enter false details anyway. I think what Facebook does now is reasonable, they ask for a phone number and then send a verification text to the phone before approving your account.

Email is not that secure. We have many instances of people being hacked.

Ray, precautions are already in place for what you are suggesting. As far as I know, (I have no blog), but, don’t you need a fixed ip address to open up a blog, the same as a normal web page, so as search engines can find you ? If so, you can be quickly traced through that fixed ip address ?

Certainly, drivers have to be trained and tested, but the reasons for that are not just money raising, or for identification purposes. Poor drivers kill people as well as themselves, many others maimed, which cost the state, and taxpayers many millions of dollars a year. All that unregistered blogs can do is upset someone, or perhaps hurt their professional reputations. For those making it up as they go, which is what you are referring to, usually it all comes back to bite them in the …. eventually ?

There certainly are hateful people who would find a way arround any safeguards Brian but it would require a fair bit more effort to act maliciously without the fear of consequences so I think that it would substantially reduce the level of animus on the Net, which would be a good thing. More importantly the the “anything goes” mindset would quite rightly be challenged and hopefully discredited forever.

Paul, there are no such precautions in place and your suggestion about fixed IPs is pure fantasy. To start with you don’t need a fixed one – mine’s not due to the LAN I’m on up here. And then there are proxies. And then how do you get the IP anyway unless the blog is registered? Getting a blog is far too easy and there are presently no checks or balances in place and no way of finding someone who doesn’t want to be found, regardless of what they do. Your ideas show that you’re right out the window about this and that it’s rather pointless responding to you. Besides, if you don’t own or inted to own a blog (or you don’t contribute or inrtend to contribute to an anonymously authored hate blog) it does not effect you.

Give that a read, and perhaps you may change you’re mind ?
It’s a how-to guide on doing just as I suggested. As a blog owner, as far as I know, you have a master page, that gives you all sorts of information, that the user cannot see. For instance, I have a program installed here, that tells me everytime a site is trying to track me, and my internet patterns. In fact, everytime I come here, it clicks over another, and warns me of such.

Every ip is registered. We all have modems, with username and password, and as soon as that modem is switched on, it goes through an authorised phase, and clears that user, issues them with an ip address, and the internet comes up. The isp’s have computerised logs, as to who was assigned a port, and when.

I wish that It was as simple of that Paul however experience has shown me that it isn’t.
That said IP addresses can be useful in unmasking scum-bags if you can compare them to those used by known individuals Its just not the complete answer by any stretch of the imagination.

Paul – here’s the thing: When someonoe starts up a new WordPress blog the IP is not viewable to anyone else. So all your carry on about using IPs to eradicate hate blogs is hot air. If that worked then it would be working already.

Hot air huh ?
Perhaps you need to do a bit of reading, rather than believe everything you think you know ?

Of course it is not visible, you have to ask the server for it, or download one of the many number of tools, to do the job for you. They’re out there, all you need to do is a google. There are hundreds of them.

Oh for God’s sake, WordPress are not going to give you a blog owner’s IP address and there are no other “tools” for finding one unless the blog owner is stupid enough to also put a comment on your own blog, but even then he’d probably use a proxy. As for SW, that was only was taken down because the owner had given verbal clues as to his identity and was concerned about being exposed as the stalking scumbag that he is. Well, actually he was shitting bricks. You’re way off the mark here.

So, you consider st*lking him, as perhaps he did you (?), threatening to expose him on the net, because he didn’t agree with you, justified ? I don’t know the specifics, not interested, just the ramifications.

You continue to ignore evidence, defending your supposed incorrect “facts”, to support an argument lacking any cogency whatsoever ?
Why can’t you just admit you could be wrong and be done with it.

Would certainly increase a dwindling reputation, or is it the reputation of being the internet’s biggest “know it all” more important to you ?

QUOTING Mr Hall: “Lower case Alan on the other hand, has as they would say about wayward schoolboys, “behaviour issues” and he could clearly benefit from the steadying effect of accountability for the things he says and does.”

What ‘behaviour’ issues would they be?
There is absolutely nothing that I have done that needs accounting for, and if anybody thinks I have, then they are seriously deluded.

The fruity one on the other hand, is in need of serious help.

for instance there is this gem…….

‘There is no Santa, lowercase Al supports the Muslims, get with the program Iain…’

I would be surprised if I have ever mentioned Muslims on this, or any other site.
I certainly would not support them, or any other religion, because they are all off with the fairies in my opinion.
Probably not as much as GD himself though.

Setting up an anonymous hate blog on which to slander, deride & stalk others is not “free speech”. If you support that type of free speech you are supporting scumbags – which seems entirely self evident going by your tone.

When was the last time (you) were told to “shut down” under threats of god knows what ?

The next time will be the first.

And I’m not claiming to be the leader of anything – I’m just expressing my opinion on the issue as you are yours. Obviously you just can’t handle someone disagreeing with you so you revert to denigrating their character, as you’ve attempted to do here. Why don’t you just admit you’ve got some kind of misguided grudge and move on?

It’s impossible to cruise past your house.
What would be wrong is if I posted your address all over the net.
But driving down a street and then turning around and going back out again straight away, is hardly a hanging offence.
And Iain you need to buy a new book.
if you call that stalking, you are as seriously deluded as the fruity one is.
But whatever rocks your boat,……go for it.

You know what Ray I have met other bloggers in “real life” before shared a cuppa and had a most Jolly time had Alan suggested that we meet for a tea or even a Latte I would have thought nothing amiss however for him to act like a burglar casing my joint is actually rather creepy.

That’s the point that “alan” doesn’t seem to get, Iain. I’ve had similar things happen. In two (separate) cases the ‘bloggers’ actually stayed in our holiday units without explaining who they were (ie that they knew me via the internet) and then used information gained to deride me elsewhere on other blogs. “alan” did much the same to you by boasting about his ‘secret mission’ here. It’s pathetic and if he’s genuine he should apologise.

off with the fairies springs to mind.
the fruity one is in good company.

so where else have i ‘derided’ iain on the internet?
that was good for a chuckle.

a nice deft tactic change though.
well done guys.
could you sign up for melbourne, we need the help

the problem for you two, is that you both have very big history on the net, a goodly proportion of which is not only laughable, but rather sad thinking that supposedly grown men are reduced to that.
not to mention ray must have a legal mind like no other in history!

so they say…”what is alan doing googling us”
it’s actually a natural reaction when you are directed somewhere to have a read.
it’s interesting to see what else might be out there, but of course i was totally overwhelmed with hits, and i guess i only clicked on a minute fraction of them.

I didn’t say you derided Iain anywhere but here, “alan” – learn to read. Look, maybe if you stopped being an anonymous troll and posted under your real name you’d start to see why those who do have had a gutful of people like you. Give it a try. What’s stopping you? Oh … no balls?

your problem is that you would not know the truth if it bit you on the arse.

if you choose to believe i am not called alan, then that’s not my problem.
not to mention it’s completely irrelevant.

and let’s get this straight, how easy is it for iain to ban me if he has had a ‘gutful’?
go on iain, i dare you!!!
i will be absolutely devastated when he does, they will have to put me on suicide watch.
sorry, i forgot, he has to keep his enemies close…..benny hill stuff.
hahaha

anyway, apart from the 3 stooges, i have nothing as far as i know, negative about me anywhere on the net.
you and your tag team partner on the other hand………….

Alan
Frankly I see no reason to ban you at present because I see you as being rather like bad case of jock itch, something that will return without constant vigilance, so I would rather be able to know that you are posting under this nick instead of having you invent a new identity that I have to detect in the future. I do reserve the right to edit your comments to make you look sillier if you push the envelope too far though.

stop the crapola iain.
did i reinvent myself when you banned me previously?
quite simply, it’s not going to happen, i already know what i set out to know.
ban me and i am simply banned and gone.
do you think i could give a stuff?
your problem is that you need more than just ray, and the fruity one, and you know it.

you have already edited previously, and guess what?
who cares?
it just shows that you are dishonest, but i already know that anyway.

and as for ray…….apologise for what?
for being at fault for not telling my real name is mohammed and not alan?
just what right do you have to know may i ask(even though you already do)?
perhaps you can read me my rights, being a legal expert and all!!!

“alan”, where I have said that I wanted to know your identity? I haven’t and, once again, you have purposely twisted what I’ve said. I only suggested you try posting under your real name because, by doing that, you might finally learn how the highly personalised snark that anonymous trolls like you engage in is not only inappropriate, it’s also downright childish and pathetic. Btw, even if your first name is “alan” (and I don’t give a shit if it is), you are still essentially anonymous. I’m buggered if I know what you get out of this but you come across as someone with real inadequacy problems. I suggest a course in self esteem might help – it’s never too late to start feeling better about yourself.

Iain, it’s your blog mate, but I’d put this snivelling coward of a troll on permanent moderation and only allow through those comments that are not the type of personalised snark he thrives on. He’s a pain in the arse just out to stir you (and I) up …. and quite obviously he’s already writing about it ‘elsewhere’. Why feed the trolls by responding to them? No one else does.

Good idea, Iain. Quite frankly, I’m fed up responding to trolls like “alan” and I think the only policy that will work is a ‘no tolerance’ one – ie. no personalised/trolling comments get through. He’s not here to add to the debate on the various topics you bring up – he’s here to keep reflaming the old blog wars. And I’d suggest totally ignoring anything written anywhere else too – it’ll die off if it’s not fed.

Well at least I can’t be accused of acting too quickly on things like this.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Copyright

Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the "fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review" section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
let's look at the Australian Copyright Council's fact sheet on Fair Use:

The Federal Court has stated that “criticism and review” involves making a judgment of the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas. Criticism and review may be strongly expressed, and may be expressed humorously, and need not be balanced. The defence can apply where the criticism or review takes place in a commercial context, such as in published books or newspapers or on commercial television.

However, the court emphasised that the purpose of criticism or review must be genuine. If the person has other motives – especially if these motives involve using the material to make a profit, or using a competitor’s material to
divert customers from the competitor – the fact that they have also engaged in a form of criticism or review is not
enough to prevent the use from infringing copyright

All other content on this site is copyright Iain Hall and may not be reproduced in any form with out explicit permission of the author.

Comment Copyright

Anyone who comments at the Sandpit under a pseudonym does so on the clear understanding that by doing so they are giving any and all rights and ownership of those comments to the site-owner who may reproduce them in any form or at any other site or venue entirely at his own discretion.